numberbiter
24 Nov 2016
Re: Just who's accounts were the 2015 on... It was obvious the company was in trouble when the shares were trading at 300p, as the company had been leaking cash for a number of accounting periods.It is company law that is wrong; auditors are responsible for the company as a whole and have no responsibility towards individual shareholders, either existing or potential. So they can sign off accounts that are patently inaccurate (Tesco fraudulent accounting, T Clarke's £2.8 million stolen over several years, as examples) and are immune from prosecution, My view is that if auditors are incapable of doing the job properly there is no point in having them, but in any case the law needs to be changed so that auditors are responsible to individual shareholders.
Peermade
16 Nov 2016
Re: Just who's accounts were the 2015 on... Well you might be right TX2 but how is that three or is it four Chartered Accountant directors considered the 2015 and earlier financials and saw nothing wrong with them. I seem to recall that the 2015 financials actually referred to there being no contingent liabilities, despite the nature of the investment contracts entered into with punters. There is nothing wrong commercial ineptitude, or with with overpaying for a company other than looking stupid but the level of write offs this year leaves one aghast. The real problem is the terms of the investment contacts which can be whatever the board thinks is OK at the time but incorrect disclosure in the financials is inexcusable. Think about the poor buyers who took up shares at anything over £1. OK some of them were the old board, but that only proves my point. How can this be allowed to happen? What were the auditors doing? Why no qualified audit report for instance if the accounting treatment was wrong?
TX2
15 Nov 2016
Re: Just who's accounts were the 2015 ones You may well be correct that in theory a case could be made;but on a practical level the cost would likely far outweigh any possible gain.Remember SGI is operating under Jersey law where everybody probably is a member of the same golf club!Good shot Judge.My round.
Peermade
14 Nov 2016
Just who's accounts were the 2015 ones The answer is the directors of the company at that time. They prepare and provide the accounts for audit but they are responsible for them. As such the statement in the 2016 accounts as follows"The Board has revisited the accounting treatment previously adopted in connection with certain transactions and has concluded that it was not in accordance with the applicable accounting standards. Accordingly the Board has decided to adopt some, significantly changed, accounting policies in the presentation of the accounts. These have resulted in a restatement of prior years' results and a substantial write-down of balance sheet assets. These changes stem largely from fundamental errors in the accounting treatment previously adopted, most notably of investment product "sales" recognised in previous years."Would it not be conceivable that the shareholders and the lenders were mislead over a number of years and are the former directors legally responsible for this? Being a director of a public company with a substantial shareholder base is a very important role and such directors are paid to understand and question all matters relating to the business of the company, be that asset values, investment policy, stock levels, borrowing facilities and terms, and the financial statements and their preparation. How many of the 2015 directors hold a professional accounting qualification. Unusually more than you might think.
BOWOOD
28 Oct 2016
Re: AGM Brand names do have a value when profitable but with SGI poor trading results will imo force it to sell some brands in order to preserve its stamp business which I feel will be the wrong thing for the group to do. Even at 9/10p I feel everything positive is in the MC of £18m but I see nothing positive at the moment.
TX2
28 Oct 2016
Re: AGM The new management gave an update of the horror story with the annual results on 3rd Oct so they probably have nothing worthwhile to add.I agree with the previous comments esp the valuation of rare stamps & add as well as Mallett legal problems which could be costly;I have some questions re possible claims over stamp investment plans and as well as borrowings not sure how recoverable some of the receivables are.On the positive side the brand names have value as do some parts of the retail business,auction houses etc.But I question whether SGI has raised enough cash to turn the business round.
BOWOOD
28 Oct 2016
Re: AGM Debt is a problem still as it the litigation matter. The current year will undoubtedly take a further hit to the bottom line.
Dingledangle
28 Oct 2016
Re: AGM Regrettably the philatelic stock is still grossly overvalued considering the market for rarities today. I forsee further stock writedowns in the coming months. The business as it stands should be worth something like 8-9p a share. At 8p or less it is probably a weak buy.
barnowl01
27 Oct 2016
AGM The company was/is in a mess, the share price is in meltdown and all they can tell shareholders is that a director has left and resolutions have been passed.
numberbiter
05 Oct 2016
Re: Book net assets 22p per share @ 1 April TX2, You give a very good summary, which explains what has happened. However, any accountant reading the accounts for the year ended 31st March 2015 would have realised something was terribly wrong. In 18'months stocks had more than doubled and stood at around 800 days, which meant at the current rate of sales it would take over two years to clear the stock. At the time, the shares were around 300p compared to the current 11p.I find it amazing that there was no warning in the audited accounts. It is a pity that the law states that auditors are not responsible to individual shareholdes, so even when the accounts are patently wrong (as they were in this case) shareholders have no redress against the auditor.
walrusty
05 Oct 2016
Re: Book net assets 22p per share @ 1 April Thank you very much for that info.It does put a different complexion on things.
TX2
05 Oct 2016
Book net assets 22p per share @ 1 April Following the open offer/placing of shares @ 10p immediately after the accounts the book net assets per share were reduced from 81p to 22p;due to the huge number of discounted shares issued.This is clearly stated in the final results.It also needs to be remembered that nearly 40% of the net assets are intangibles(ie goodwill) & in addition the accounts list a number of potential liabilities that my significantly reduce these net assets.These include legal claims at Mallett division,risk of claims re investment plans,some monies owing may not be paid.In addition there are serious questions re valuation of stocks in particular that of rare stamps which SG seems to be having difficulty in selling.
walrusty
05 Oct 2016
Re: The future Somebody,or some unit trust bought half a million shares this morning(Not me!).Very interesting,and worth £5000 up for every penny up.Nice one Cyril!
barnowl01
05 Oct 2016
The future The dire past seems well documented now. Seems like there are concerns that the company may fold. That fact didn't stop the buyers yesterday though.The interesting and telling time for those holding or wanting a punt will be the next week or two.The six month period has just ended and results will be hard to keep hidden. Watch the share price I say.
walrusty
05 Oct 2016
Re: 81p assets On StockMarketWire dated 3/10/16 at 7.16am said "Group turnover was £59.1m down from £60m.Net assets per share had sunk to 81.5p from 143.2".
